9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was framed after scrutiny. The notice was, thus, issued beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. 2. The Assessing Officer had recorded the following reasons for issuance of notice : "In this case, the return of income declaring a total income at Rs. 68,09,01,730 was filed on December 29, 1999. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act was completed on March 30, 2002, determining the total income at Rs. 92,07,62,670, which was revised at Rs. 69,17,49,861 as a result of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)-VI, Baroda, order dated April 30, 2004. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible deduction. Thus, the income of Rs. 74,23,000 has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. 3. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped to the tune of Rs. 74,23,000. It is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act." 3. The petitioner raised several objections under a communication dated October 10, 2006, opposing the Assessing Officer's action of reopening of assessment. It was contended, inter alia, that in the assessment the claim of deduction under section 35D of the Act was ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice that along with the return filed by the assessee, notes which form part of the return of income were produced. In such notes in the context of the claim of deduction under section 35D of the Act, it was stated as under : "The company has incurred the expenditure on Euro Issue (GDR) for the first time in the assessment year 1995-96 and one-tenth of the total expenditure amounting to Rs. 87,73,074 is debited to the profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1999 (assessment year 1999-2000). This amount is claimed as deduction under section 35D (fifth year) of the Income-tax Act. Similar claim has been allowed in the regular assessment for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing from sub-section (2) of section 35D is that the aggregate amount of expenditure exceeds 2.5 per cent. of the costs of the product or the capital employed in the business of the company, the deduction has to be limited to 2.5 per cent. It is true that, in the present case, the assessee did not produce either the costs of the project or the capital employed in the business of the company. It was, therefore, not possible for the Assessing Officer to ascertain from such return whether the assessee's claim for deduction was hit by the provision of section 35D(2) of the Act. In that context, as noted above, had this been the first year of claim, the Revenue's contention would require closer scrutiny. However, this was the fifth yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
